1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

CARE International (CARE) - United States

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Equitable Payments for Watershed Services (EPWS) is a programme using Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) to improve rural livelihoods.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Incentive mechanisms are used to reward upstream landowners for maintaining a beneficial land use or for adapting a particular land use practice which affects the availability and/or quality of downstream water resources. The EPWS approach has enormous potential to advance a new conservation revolution based on a compensation mechanism encouraging and financing conservation efforts as well as improving the livelihoods of the rural poor. EPWS aims to spread SLM technologies to communities, to raise awareness of the benefits of SLM and to improve land productivity. Farmer groups are formed to lead the implementation of SLM.

Methods: The approach includes supervision, support and training of farmers to ensure appropriate implementation of SLM and efficient soil erosion control. Methods include demonstration plots and farmer-to-farmer extension. Capacity building to farmers (on gender mainstreaming, good governance and relevant laws and policies) and monitoring of hydrological and livelihood status are important components of the approach. Efforts to ensure good women integration resulted in a relatively high proportion within the farmer groups (>35%). A payment mechanism has been established to compensate farmers for delivering watershed services (in form of freshwater) through implementation of SLM. Compensation payments – paid in cash and through material support – are made first to establish land use changes, and thereafter for service delivery and maintenance. They are mainly covered through international donors (DANIDA) and ‘buyers’ from the private sector, investing in watershed management.

Role of stakeholders: The EPWS team consisting of CARE International, WWF staffs and short-term workers (such as students) is always involving government staff in various activities to induce them to knowledge on EPWS in particular and the PES concept at large.

Other important information: This PES approach is very new in the country and there is little expertise within the government -which therefore needs to take deliberate efforts to groom experts through seminars and courses on PES mechanisms and its operationalisation

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Improvement of livelihoods, improvement of hydrological system)

Improve livelihoods through SLM / Improvement of hydrological system / Mechanism to ensure effectiveness, growth and sustainability of EPWS / Enhance quality of program implementation

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Land cover changes due to extensive cultivations / Deforestation and forest degradation / Soil erosion, loss of soil fertility / Low storage capacity of the Uluguru Mountains due to land cover change / Declining amount of available water in the river coming from Uluguru Mts / Increased run-off and sediment load in water system due to bare lands

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	none
planning	interactive
implementation	external support	Farmers are being compensated (paid in cash) for labour and area provided for the implementation of SLM (opportunity costs). Material support through manure, seeds and working tools is given as well.
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Interactive implementation and decision making; participatory feasibility studies to identify the core problems; PRA to identify and agree on SLM technologies; government staff was involved in various activities e.g. planning, training, data collection and analysis, extension, etc.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

practical skills on SLM measures, leadership skills, governance, gender mainstreaming, policies and laws to ensure their understanding on the implementation of the EPWS project in their locality

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Key elements: technical support on monitoring, provision of extension services for improved land use, situation analysis, awareness creation, capacity building on legal issues and mapping of interventions; People involved: University, foresters, hydrologists, Ministry of agriculture, land use planners

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were monitored through measurements

socio-cultural aspects were monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were monitored through observations

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research is a main part of PES as an approach to facilitate SLM adoption and has been very effective in guiding programme design; it included SLM assessment, hydrological analysis, economic analysis, social and livelihoods assessment, etc. All interventions applied were proposed by research conducted before and during implementation.

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 100,000-1,000,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (DANIDA): 60.0%; private sector ('buyers' of ecosystem service): 9.0%; local community / land user(s) (through labour power): 31.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• paid in cash

Comments:

Farmers are being compensated (paid in cash) for labour and area provided for the implementation of SLM (opportunity costs). Material support through manure, seeds and working tools is given as well.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

Participant land users can continue the activity without additional support- maintenance costs are low and the technologies will improve productivity and resilience of farming system. Upscaling to neighbouring villages will be facilitated by the establishment of networks of farmers groups to receive training by local extension services. A steering committee, with representatives of the farmers, investors and government offices will facilitate replication in other parts of the country.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
PES as an additional argument for supporting property claims
To ensure services are delivered and payments are made and a reliable monitoring mechanism has been put in place
Poor people are in the centre of the objectives
Approach rewards land users for providing watershed services
PES as an incentive for conservation, helping to change land users’ vision towards improved land management
Once measures are applied they are simple and cheap to maintain

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
May reduce the effectiveness of non-incentive based approaches as people will now demand rewards/payments	awareness creation is important to all players including government and local communities
Payments / rewards are realised before service delivery	ensure integration of PES with other approaches to ensure effectives short and long term benefits. Paying labour cost upfront while waiting for the service delivery rewards

7.1 Methods/ sources of information